CM'ing models - Comparison with Rational Rose

[mhyde]

Hi,

I'm about to set up an EA model for my team but I'm not sure how best to go about arranging the model so that CM is easy.

We're using v6.1 Corporate Edition and I've experimented with the concept of controlling packages and using security to implement locks, but it seems a bit confusing.

In the past we've used Rational Rose, and controlled the various elements in the Logical and Component views as .cat and .sub files in CM. Additionally, the overall model files (.mdl) were controlled. This meant that if a new package was required, the mdl needed to be checked out. Alternatively if a user just wanted to make changes at the class level, only the cat files needed to be checked out. At any time, a developer could sync to the latest versions in CM and get an up to date model.

On the face of it, it would seem logical to CM the EAP files and the XML package files, but as I see it, the locking info is held within the EAP file itself. I don't want everybody to have to concurrently checkout the EAP to update the lock (within EA) as well as checking out the XML file (so that the file is writeable in Explorer).

Can anybody suggest a way to successfully implement what I (think I) want? For info, we may be using CVS for version control in the short term, but ultimately we plan to use Dimensions.

Thanks in advance

Malcolm

[nljgo]

We are currently setting up configuration managment with CM synergy and we are facing the same problem.
Hopefully you (or someone else?) could help us to find a solution.

[carolmika]

Hi,
I'm trying to do the same here, but my conclusion until now is that the best procedure is use the lock/unlock with the baseline control, without using the Check-in/Check-out functions - it's because the Check-ou lock is by package, not by element as we want here; and to 'compare' versions, we're starting to use the Baseline function that don't use Version Control tools...
Hope it helps...
Carol